This post adequately sums up my concerns.<p>Here we have a device that doesn't support USB thumbdrives, doesn't support dropbox (at least system-wide, I assume the dropbox iphone app would work), is unable to run ruby or any of my other dev scripts/tools, cannot install firefox or firefox plugins, etc.<p>I do not want to see computing head this direction.
That Apple is creating a closed system is of little surprise. Steve Jobs is all about control. It works in the short term, but I believe it will bite them in the ass over the long-term.<p>Making use of a closed-system and trying to be the best in a category assumes that you have access to the most brilliant minds in that field, and the most brilliant marketing campaign. What makes Apple great? Well, they can control every aspect of their production because they own all their own tools and can keep out the crap. Also, they have slick industrial design. For now they also have some of the most brilliant minds in the industry, but not all of them. This is why they will never achieve world domination with their products. I suppose I could make use of their own advertising to make an example : "I'm a mac, I'm a PC". You are either an apple person or you're not. Their closed-system allows little flexibility. They would be doomed to what they used to be were it not for them opening their file formats to standards.<p>Why is this not the best approach? Because of human innovation. People hate being held down, forced into one category, etc. This is what apple is doing, but because their products are so innovative, consumers will go for it.<p>Google is much smarter; they know what to hold onto and what to open up for the masses. Even though they employ many geniuses, they are always on the search for new innovative ideas. That's why they purchase so many startups, or so I've been told.<p>That's why I believe in a race between Google and Apple, Apple WILL lose eventually.<p>Closed-systems should actually drive innovation because they must be circumvented. That's why Apple products are cracked all the time. So I guess the challenge then is, that if you aren't happy with Apple, build a better product and market it as well as they do. All things being equal, the open-system product will win every time. You can't employ all of the brightest people yourself, all of the time. I think Apple will learn this in due time, and then things will change.<p>A sidenote is that a large part of Apple's appeal is simplicity because of their closed-system. If anyone could create an opem-system as turnkey as theirs, they'd come ahead by far. I think one of the closest systems to being fully open and turnkey I've seen so far is Facebook Connect, but I'm starting to become too long-winded, so I'll leave it at that.
There is only one thing I want Apple to do at this point.<p>Open up developer ad-hoc provisioning. Keep the App Store closed, heck, make it even stricter, but give that alternative, ad-hoc channel a chance. You don't have to publicize it; all you need to do is to change a single number in a plist somewhere on your activation servers from 100 to unlimited.<p>Then the hacker community will focus on adding features to your product instead of on compromising its security.
I know of no other company that can charge $100 for 16GB of flash memory. Differentiating on real features like 3G is good and expected. Differentiating on commodity hardware like memory is unfair.<p>With the ubiquity of SD and micro SD and need for more and more storage due to the explosion of digital media, they don't even provide a port. Obviously, they don't provide a port because it would destroy their product line. When you have the cheapest digital electronics providing these ports and high-end hardware like the iPod/Phone/Pad not providing it, that says a lot. It says "we don't care about anything except our product the money in your wallet."<p>It's ironic that MS gets so much flack from developers in the OSS purist and Apple fanbois camps about their closed products. They've always been the most open from the hardware perspective and they've always been great to developers. Apple is just the opposite.<p>If we care about an open future in computing, we need to think clearly about which platforms to develop for.
The revolutionary thing about this tablet is that it's not a Mac. Tablets have been around for a while and haven't caught on because nobody wants to buy a keyboardless laptop running a normal OS.<p>If you are worried about openness, then look to Android. I'm sure we will see a plethora of Android tablets that will be like a large Droid/Nexus One just like this tablet is a large iPhone.
Unfortunately, this is what people like my mom and my sister want: something dead simple and easy to use like iPhone.<p>Both OSX and Windows still give them a lot of trouble.<p>It's hard to pair both freedom and flexibility with ease of use and simplicity.
I bet someone at Apple is thinking hard about how could they seal the MacPro case too. It's the only system they sell that you are allowed to open and upgrade or tinker (beyond something limited like a RAM upgrade).<p>Apple is no longer called Apple Computers because they will not sell computers anymore. They will sell closed devices with a closed software ecosystem. They will also sell the best devices money can buy.
Eh, every time I hear this argument my response is the same: if they stop making open Macs, I'll stop buying Macs. I'm not married to it, and there are open platforms to switch to.<p>When they make a new thing I don't want, it doesn't make the old stuff I did want any less cool.
Apple has managed to maintain consistency and provide a level of experience over the years by tightly controlling the platform. This is just another manifestation of that. Look at the App store, the fact that you have to use hacks to get OS X running on a PC or that you buy Apple computers with OS X being pre-loaded as examples of that.<p>If you don't like the closed platform you can grab a PC, but I think this is just how Steve Jobs does things -- he likes to have as much control as possible so that Apple can deliver a certain type and level of experience to users.
My position is if I pay good money for hardware it's mine and I will do with it as I please. And I will not buy it until it has been hacked (and I can install Linux on it ;-) ).<p>Same with my iPhone. It wouldn't be half as useful without being jailbroken.
I am reading a lot of concerns that Apple has created a closed system. You are right, Apple has a closed system. That's what Apple has mostly sold for years.<p>What I think is exciting is that this device breaks new ground. It's only version 1.0. Better devices will come out. Hopefully, from companies other than Apple. There's virtually nothing stopping another company from selling an open platform, one that runs open software, has open hardware, has WIFI, has USB and has higher screen resolution than the 1024x768 that my 8 year old iBook has. And, hopefully someone will deliver a device that uses low power open cores.<p>Stop complaining. Start dreaming up something better.
I believe Apple's success stems from its portable devices, mainly the iPod and the iPhone. Both of those devices could take full advantage of Apple's closed door policy. The iPod and the iPhone are <i>extremely</i> well built because Apple had complete control over all the parts. All the other phones on the market just felt like cheaper plastic knockoffs. Furthermore, Apple is somewhat lucky that the functionality you'd want from these portable devices is very limited and so Apple didn't miss any of the market by providing such limited functionality.<p>However, devices bigger than iPhone - in the netbook/iPad range - need significantly more functionality. I believe Apple missed the boat with the iPad, especially if it really is targeting grandpa and grandma. People are becoming more tech savvy and they will be less and less willing to shell out money for an inflexible device that only serves a rigid set of predefined functions.<p>The iPad, I'm sure, is constructed extremely well. However, taking it to the bathroom, to bed and around the house in general isn't the same thing as taking it everywhere you go. Apple's success is in building beautiful durable portable hardware. The iPad just isn't portable enough or flexible enough for people to want it.
I agree with the article. I look more forward to a light weight Chrome netbook. I don't know if it is the offing or not, but perhaps a Chrome netbook could forgo a physical keyboard and have a popup virtual keyboard like my Droid (although that adds the expense of a touchscreen). Bonus points to hardware manufacturers: sell a Chrome netbook that looks like a iPad, but has a slide out physical keyboard like my Motorola Droid phone.
Apple has become the prime example of closed computing. It has its benefits: the iPhone is painfully easy to use, has very few viruses, and works pretty much all the time (except when AT&T drops, but that's a separate worry).<p>Google is trying to take the opposite pole: you can do pretty much anything on an Android phone, but that includes buggy software with bad UI design.<p>There will always be both positions. Both have benefits to different people. To a HackerNews audience, the open system will almost always seem better -- HackerNews types enjoy tinkering and will tend to be advanced users. But not everyone shares the HN love of tinkering.
At first I was let down with it being closed system. But after a night to sleep on it, I'm starting to warm to the idea.<p>I'll never use the iPad for work, and in the same way I can't bring myself round to using a Mac Mini as my media centre, I don't want the hassle of a full OS over a purposely built OS for the task(s) in hand. All I'd want to do on the iPad is browse the web, read, watch videos, and perhaps play some games.<p>Overall as long as this isn't Apples future strategy for the Mac platform (which would be suicide), I think it's a nice product, which by the looks of it, will do the job it's made for brilliantly.
This could be the big step for the developers' dream of using the actual target device as the host for developing(end-to-end toolchain and the debugging host of course). Success of open systems(both HW and SW) comes from this marginal-looking(huge in fact) idea. So, the hardware is there, but unfortunately they lack the determination. It is sad to see Apple performing even worse than MS on this very department.<p>I personally will insist on "not" buying any Apple product unless they develop a strategy to innovate(as they did in the past) instead of trying to monopolize the scene...
Personally, I don't have a problem with iPad being closed. I have problem with a lack of an open alternative (or several). I'm using an iPhone, but I'm sure as hell glad there is the Android.
I think the biggest obvious point people are missing is that Jobs intends many, many people to own a MacBook <i>and</i> an iPad. Probably an iPhone, too. They serve different niches in the ecology of your technological life.<p>(Oh, and if you've got some other laptop and pick up an iPad just how long do you think the average user will last before drooling a little more over the MacBook lineup?)
If I were Adobe, I'd be furious. Exclusion of Flash from this platform is a slap in the face, despite Jobs' perspective of how it would break his App Store model. If it weren't for Adobe focusing their Creative Suite development on Jobs' platforms, Apple wouldn't have had the design community's support that it had for so many years. Apple owes Adobe.
I see the iPad as a communal home machine that floats around the house. It replaces newspapers, books, magazines, remotes (for music and hopefully TV), picture frames, and for some video game consoles. Eventually it will control your oven, door entry system etc. To me it's a "home computer."
Funny thing that under the article advertisement for this appeared:<p><a href="http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-iphone-3g-3gs-halloween-collection.html?gclid=CPGX153TxZ8CFcGAzAod7hGRgA" rel="nofollow">http://www.ideal-case.com/demon-silicone-series-case-for-iph...</a>
i'd like to see one IRL - but i dont see the iPad being especially easy to use with regards to its size.<p>on an iPhone you can easily type with your thumbs, grip it firmly and you can use all sorts of multi-touch gestures.<p>i cant see that happening with a 10 inch tablet.<p>you would need to hold it / balance it on one hand and then awkwardly control it with your other hand. Doesnt seem ergonomic.<p>maybe one of the accesories they should release is an iArm, so we can hold it with two arms and confidently use gestures and such with your iArm
It's really easy.<p>You use the iPad to:<p>- read a book
- surf the web
- organize/look at/show off photos
- watch videos/movies/tv shows
- listen to music
- send/receive emails
- play games
- use maps/calendar and the 140k+ apps available in the app store<p>Anything else, use a Mac (or Windows/Linux).